I was sitting in the press box at the Bryce Jordan Center on Saturday watching the Penn State men's basketball team lose another game. I thought to myself, "There has to be a reason why these Nittany Lions just can't win in the Big Ten."

It was then that I was reminded of an argument I had with my friends last week.

We were discussing the NFL Playoffs and why certain teams were good at winning in the postseason, while others were not. My one friend, let's call him Joe, said it was because of the talent of the players on the rosters. This prompted my other friend, let's call him John, to point out that the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl last year with a less talented team on paper compared to the Carolina Panthers.

John said it was because the quarterback was never rattled and was always in control; that's why Tom Brady has won two titles in three years.

That's when I brought up the question: In which positions in the other two major sports (I'm excluding the NHL because it will be two years until hockey comes back) is it important to have an unflappable leader in order to win a title?

We started with baseball. I said the catcher, representing the position I played for eight years, and was immediately shot down by John, who said that the entire game of baseball is depended on the pitcher.

He said if your pitcher couldn't handle the pressure, your team is in deep trouble.

I had to admit that he was right, but I reminded him that there are 11 or 12 pitchers on a roster, some who pitch only once a week and sometimes only pitch to one batter. I told him that a team could survive with one bone-headed pitcher, but couldn't survive with a catcher who couldn't call a game (see, 2004 Phillies).

John and I agreed to disagree on that point.

We then moved onto basketball and Joe said the point guard was the obvious choice here. John and I tried to think of an argument back, but couldn't.

It was at this point when my mind came back to the BJC, just in time to see Michigan's Ronald Coleman hit the 3-pointer that put the Wolverines up 62-57. Then I watched Penn State's Ben Luber dribble up the court and try to make a play by himself, but he was called for a charge.

That is when it hit me: a basketball team without a point guard who is calm late in the game will never win in the Big Ten.

Luber is a good point guard, but in the last two games that the Lions had a chance to win, he made the mistake that cost them in the last minute. The aforementioned charge on Saturday and a foul with 11 seconds to go in a 2-point loss to Texas A&M on Jan. 2.

At least when Marlon Smith was healthy, there was a player who never seemed to get rattled by the better guards in the Big Ten. Now with Smith out for the season, I have serious doubts that Penn State is going to win more than three games in the conference this year.

I am not saying that Luber is not a good basketball player, but it takes more than talent to win games in a guard-oriented conference. Championship basketball starts from the guard and goes from there.

For this reason, the Lions are going to remain in the bottom third of the Big Ten until one or both of these things occur: some combination of Luber and freshmen Mike Walker and Danny Morrissey are able to play without getting rattled, and/or Smith is healthy enough to play again and is able to return to the level he was at before the blood clot.

Because a team is only as good as its No. 1 guard.